It's a good thing people have you to tell them how to live their lives and what choices to choose. Otherwise, they might be tempted to substitute their own judgement.
It's interesting that your all-important education can't provide the thus-educated masses with the necessary education to make their own choices without your help.
I'm for absolute freedom on the question. That means I'm free not to pay for your books and computers at the library.
You're free to finance, build, and equip any kind of library you want with your own money. Filter or don't, it's your choice. Allow kids to view porn or whatever you want. It's your private library.
That's freedom. It couldn't be further away from facism.
---
BTW: The government is there to protect people from force and fraud.
In limited circumstances, it can also legitimatly provide items to the public which are "public goods". A "public good" is something that can't reasonably be attained privately (like roads and the Defense Department). Books and Internet access can easily be attained privately. Therefore, they're not public goods. Hence, they're not legitimate government expenses.
Don't be a freeloader. Buy your own damn books and Internet access.
What do your "Republican" friends say about the government financing libraries in the first place? Politics pays the bill (for the library), but politics can't call the tune?
Just start paying for these libraries with private donations. Then the donors get to decide. Until then the library policies will change as the political winds blow.
If the government pays for your access, the government gets to decide what you see. Any topic, any time, any criteria (or none at all), accurate or not.
If you don't like it, pay for it yourself.
I would just block 100% of all content. Then the freeloaders might go home.
Government financed porn surfing isn't a freedom. Privately-financed porn surfing is. If you don't want your content politically filtered, then don't have it politically financed. Pay for it yourself.
the ultimate goal should be to conserve the environmental resources required to produce and operate cars
Preserve them for whom? And, if those people aren't going to be allowed to use them to produce and operate cars either, what are those resources going to be used for? What if we all don't agree that your plan for our resources is the better plan?
The plan that goes:
"I'm going to be unhappy and backward today so that future generations can grow up to deprive themselves of happiness and progress just like me"
just doesn't seem to be the greatest plan.
I'm thinking it might be better to just find/make more and better resources. Using technology.
Some of these attacks the RIAA is planning are clearly illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the RIAA engaged in the conspiracy to commit a felony?
Someone should look up the laws. I'm pretty sure that if I were planning the same massive criminal action, the conspiracy itself would be illegal. Isn't it time someone arrested the leaders of the RIAA?
You should pay attention to the point I was trying to make. A government can't enslave it's citizens with cruise missles. Kill them in large numbers, yes. Enslave them, no.
Light arms will always serve as some level of protection against government tyranny. You can debate how effective they'll be, but the cruise missle comments are silly.
screwing around with immense things that you really don't understand and that happen to keep you alive unknown == dangerous.
Like the economy, for example?
The problem with the global-warming believers is their careless attitude toward the economy. In the case of global warming, the cure (Kyoto) is worse than the disease (global warming).
Add the fact that no one -- not even it's proponents -- believes Kyoto will cure global warming and the fact that global warming caused by humans is inconclusive at best.
Perhaps we ought to carefully consider our policy options, rather than rushing headlong into "answers" inspired by doomday predictions?
You see, the thing about a free society is that things just happen the way they happen. You don't have to trust that the smartest, deepest-thinking, most uncorrupted, luckiest, best-choice-making leaders are there to make everyone's choices for them.
I'm not saying you don't have the right answers to the licensing question. Even if you do (or especially if you do), you're not the one that makes the rules. The rules that a non-free society ends up with tend to harm one group of people unjustly for the benefit of another group. And the rules offer no guarentee of happiness for anyone except the guy who makes the rules.
You also need a barber's license to cut hair and a taxi license to give people rides in your car. Explain the need for those.
Defrauding people, dumping used oil down the drain, and poisoning people are already illegal. Licensing programs simply assume that you're already guilty until you get your license.
but with people screaming left and right about how this or that business fucked 'em over, what's the state to do?
How about telling those people to grow up and make better decisions next time? Or tell them to get a lawyer and sue -- this used to be the reason we had courts.
Have you got a better idea?
Independent private-sector certifications. Need a mechanic? Look for the certification.
But if you trust your good friend to fix your car, you ought to be able to hire him to do it without fearing the license police.
There's a basic problem with "dreaming up alternatives to the current system". Most of "the current system" is based on freedom.
There's always a crowd that wants to come up with alternatives that they're SURE will work better.
They usually start with "if we just put these people in prison for doing things the way they want instead of the way we tell them, then there'll be XYZ benefit". Sometimes, they say "if we just steal XYZ from this group, we can use it for ABC purpose".
So regardless of the problems with the current system, people who don't want their stuff stolen and don't want to be threatened with prison tend to be wary of the new guy with the new idea for socio-economic construction.
Here's a freedom-enhanced idea for everyone to get the new antibiotic for however cheap you can imagine: buy all the shares of the company at the market price and then give the drug away once you own it.
See how everyone got the antibiotic they needed and no one's freedom was curtailed?
Slashdot Mirror
In a company town, you can quit and move away.
Yes. Mandate away.
It's a good thing people have you to tell them how to live their lives and what choices to choose. Otherwise, they might be tempted to substitute their own judgement.
It's interesting that your all-important education can't provide the thus-educated masses with the necessary education to make their own choices without your help.
Again:
A "public good" is something that can't reasonably be attained privately.
Education can be easily obtained privately. Therefore it's not a "public good".
I'm for absolute freedom on the question. That means I'm free not to pay for your books and computers at the library.
You're free to finance, build, and equip any kind of library you want with your own money. Filter or don't, it's your choice. Allow kids to view porn or whatever you want. It's your private library.
That's freedom. It couldn't be further away from facism.
---
BTW: The government is there to protect people from force and fraud.
In limited circumstances, it can also legitimatly provide items to the public which are "public goods". A "public good" is something that can't reasonably be attained privately (like roads and the Defense Department). Books and Internet access can easily be attained privately. Therefore, they're not public goods. Hence, they're not legitimate government expenses.
Don't be a freeloader. Buy your own damn books and Internet access.
I've never heard the term "SLC funding" before.
What do your "Republican" friends say about the government financing libraries in the first place? Politics pays the bill (for the library), but politics can't call the tune?
Just start paying for these libraries with private donations. Then the donors get to decide. Until then the library policies will change as the political winds blow.
If the government pays for your access, the government gets to decide what you see. Any topic, any time, any criteria (or none at all), accurate or not.
If you don't like it, pay for it yourself.
I would just block 100% of all content. Then the freeloaders might go home.
Government financed porn surfing isn't a freedom. Privately-financed porn surfing is. If you don't want your content politically filtered, then don't have it politically financed. Pay for it yourself.
That is all.
Preserve them for whom? And, if those people aren't going to be allowed to use them to produce and operate cars either, what are those resources going to be used for? What if we all don't agree that your plan for our resources is the better plan?
The plan that goes:
"I'm going to be unhappy and backward today so that future generations can grow up to deprive themselves of happiness and progress just like me"
just doesn't seem to be the greatest plan.
I'm thinking it might be better to just find/make more and better resources. Using technology.
Some of these attacks the RIAA is planning are clearly illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the RIAA engaged in the conspiracy to commit a felony?
Someone should look up the laws. I'm pretty sure that if I were planning the same massive criminal action, the conspiracy itself would be illegal. Isn't it time someone arrested the leaders of the RIAA?
You should pay attention to the point I was trying to make. A government can't enslave it's citizens with cruise missles. Kill them in large numbers, yes. Enslave them, no.
Light arms will always serve as some level of protection against government tyranny. You can debate how effective they'll be, but the cruise missle comments are silly.
It's just the answer to the question. No need for wild assumptions.
You can't use cruise missles to enslave your own citizens. You have to use small arms and people on the ground.
To defend myself against a group of criminals armed with handguns.
Sumo
Like the economy, for example?
The problem with the global-warming believers is their careless attitude toward the economy. In the case of global warming, the cure (Kyoto) is worse than the disease (global warming).
Add the fact that no one -- not even it's proponents -- believes Kyoto will cure global warming and the fact that global warming caused by humans is inconclusive at best.
Perhaps we ought to carefully consider our policy options, rather than rushing headlong into "answers" inspired by doomday predictions?
there is a claim that spam costs money. Money to the ISP for bandwidth and money to the end user for reading/deleting. is this really true?
Then later:
I would guess that deleting spam is about as expensive as transmitting it for an ISP.
If deleting it costs money, and not deleting it costs money, then it costs money.
It's not an social engineering question.
You see, the thing about a free society is that things just happen the way they happen. You don't have to trust that the smartest, deepest-thinking, most uncorrupted, luckiest, best-choice-making leaders are there to make everyone's choices for them.
I'm not saying you don't have the right answers to the licensing question. Even if you do (or especially if you do), you're not the one that makes the rules. The rules that a non-free society ends up with tend to harm one group of people unjustly for the benefit of another group. And the rules offer no guarentee of happiness for anyone except the guy who makes the rules.
Freedom is better.
Defrauding people, dumping used oil down the drain, and poisoning people are already illegal. Licensing programs simply assume that you're already guilty until you get your license.
but with people screaming left and right about how this or that business fucked 'em over, what's the state to do?
How about telling those people to grow up and make better decisions next time? Or tell them to get a lawyer and sue -- this used to be the reason we had courts.
Have you got a better idea?
Independent private-sector certifications. Need a mechanic? Look for the certification.
But if you trust your good friend to fix your car, you ought to be able to hire him to do it without fearing the license police.
You said: "What if we made saving money illegal?"
Prison and/or stealing (or worse) are implied in the word "illegal".
There's a basic problem with "dreaming up alternatives to the current system". Most of "the current system" is based on freedom.
There's always a crowd that wants to come up with alternatives that they're SURE will work better.
They usually start with "if we just put these people in prison for doing things the way they want instead of the way we tell them, then there'll be XYZ benefit". Sometimes, they say "if we just steal XYZ from this group, we can use it for ABC purpose".
So regardless of the problems with the current system, people who don't want their stuff stolen and don't want to be threatened with prison tend to be wary of the new guy with the new idea for socio-economic construction.
Here's a freedom-enhanced idea for everyone to get the new antibiotic for however cheap you can imagine: buy all the shares of the company at the market price and then give the drug away once you own it.
See how everyone got the antibiotic they needed and no one's freedom was curtailed?
Gee, all this time I thought people were dying because of an infection.
No artist has the right to have his creation "experienced" at all. You get to create it. The viewer decides whether it's "experienced" or not.
The 2.5" drives in the laptops we get are all 4200 RPMs. I don't think that's fast enough to do video.
This is one of the reasons laptops all seem so damn slow.
Can they sort tiny screws?